Anti-smacking law amended

[Grahameeboy]

Or could it be that the majority just think you're a fool?

I can live with that...............

Yeah, right. This bill will prevent child abuse in exactly the same way as the dog-chipping legislation prevented the recent dog attacks.

It's just increasing the regulation and compliance costs on the already law-abiding members of society. It'll do diddly-squat to affect those who beat kids to within and inch of their lives and beyond.

Dog chipping is not going to stop 'Dog Rage'.................

I am so impressed that you have a crystal ball.........

Regulations, regulations, what a pesamistic lot you all are.........law abiding citizens will have nothing to worry about with the Law so what is the problem.

Diddly squat...well if it saves the life of 1 kid then the Law is worth it....

[Ixion]

Regulations, regulations, what a pesamistic lot you all are.........law abiding citizens will have nothing to worry about with the Law so what is the problem.

...

Well, that is logically a circular argument. Of course parents (and caregivers) who do not breach the law will have nothing to worry about (except perhaps their sprogs growing up as spoilt arrogant brats).

The worry is that the law may make UN-lawabiding parents out of caring loving parents.

[MisterD]

Diddly squat...well if it saves the life of 1 kid then the Law is worth it....

That's a platitude worthy of Sue Bradford herself. If half the time and effort that has gone into the promotion of this dogs breakfast of a law change, had gone into how to really tackle child abuse, we'd be saving the life of considerably more than one child.

[Grahameeboy]

Well, that is logically a circular argument. Of course parents (and caregivers) who do not breach the law will have nothing to worry about (except perhaps their sprogs growing up as spoilt arrogant brats).

The worry is that the law may make UN-lawabiding parents out of caring loving parents.

Geeze......always a reason against...........something is broken (certainly not this record!) and the Govt are trying to fix it.....they don't have a crystal ball but trying is a positive.

That's a platitude worthy of Sue Bradford herself. If half the time and effort that has gone into the promotion of this dogs breakfast of a law change, had gone into how to really tackle child abuse, we'd be saving the life of considerably more than one child.

That is such an old argument.........the Law is a start...it is also a way to tackle child abuse as well as the Social Worker side of things.

Remember tackling child abuse is very hard to establish when a lot goes on behind closed doors as has been prooven by the recent case so this Law seems to enable less evidence to tackle the abusers and yes like in other Law breaches, mistakes are made and we have to allow the Law to act here to.

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

[Skyryder]

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

Amen to that.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Something was broken in Irag and George Bush tried to fix it. Was trying positive ?

Bad law is often worse than no law.

'Tis no different to a motorbike. I've known many people try to fix their broken bikes. And by the time they've finished , what was a simple problem that could have been fixed by a professional in a few hours , has turned into a major mess that will cost a fortune to rectify. Good intentions don't count for much. Sometimes if you don't know how to do a job properly you're best not to try.

You are not making any effort to address the logical implications of what you propound. You are just repeating the mantra "child abuse" as a justification for anything.

If there is really such an issue with child abuse, maybe ALL children chould be removed from their parents at birth and raised in state run , licensed institutions, by professionals.See, you cannot show any reason to suppose that your solution will reduce child abuse. But mine will!

So, that would solve the child abuse problem. Sorted. "Oh," you say " but I don't agree with that , I see all sorts of problems ". Not interested, I reply. Child abuse. My solution will definately eliminate it, yours won't. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse justifies the new law. When are you going to bring in your child, to be professionally raised ?

[Squeak the Rat]

I was just thinking...you know what, you geezers are actually moaning about a Law which is being drafted to fight and deal with CHILD ABUSE......and all you can do is knock this attempt....the Govt are not saying it is the best thing since Suzuki....whoops I mean slice bread, but it is a step in the right direction.

Amazing.......

Look it is simple. Step one to stopping child abuse? Criminalise and prosecute child abusers.

If that still doesn't work then look at other methods like making criminals out of my friends and family who are doing the very best that they can.

[Grahameeboy]

Look it is simple. Step one to stopping child abuse? Criminalise and prosecute child abusers.

If that still doesn't work then look at other methods like making criminals out of my friends and family who are doing the very best that they can.

There is no sensible response to that one

[Squeak the Rat]

There is no sensible response to that one

No problem, we don't expect one from you.

[Grahameeboy]

No problem, we don't expect one from you.

That was low.......but expected.........

[Flatcap]

I was just thinking...you know what, you geezers are actually moaning about a Law which is being drafted to fight and deal with CHILD ABUSE. .

I was under the impression that child abuse was illegal already....

....so if it still happens anyway....

....how will a new law stop it....?


...can someone explain that logic to me please....

[Grahameeboy]

I was under the impression that child abuse was illegal already....

....so if it still happens anyway....

....how will a new law stop it....?


...can someone explain that logic to me please....

There was a Child Abuse case a few months ago when the Mother got out of it because she claimed 'reasonable force' and the current Law worked in her favour.

The new Law being drafted is to help improve the fight against child abuse and lower the 'reasoning' for the offence...hence the name 'Anti-Smacking' so that it will not be so easy for real child abusers to abuse the slackness in the current Law and give added protection to the kids.

[Toaster]

Well..... (sigh).... the amendment is bollocks.... the act of smacking is criminalised under the new law regardless, so you are committing a crime if you smack a child unless it falls into some of the weird instances exempted under the law. What good parent wants that around their neck?

It is merely giving the authorities discretion on whether or not to prosecute. SO the cops now have to attend untold thousands of calls from little shits dobbing in their folks for getting a smack after failing to eat their asparagus.

How would you feel with the cops turning up at your home because ya neighbour saw you smack ya kid after they were naughty? They will ask you dozens of questions and pass on your details to CYFS who will then consider the welfare of ya kids too.... more probing.

One of the problems this will cause is massive amounts of paperwork for the police/CYFS tying up their time on more domestic violence files. And don't think that means less time doing road policing. Domestics are only attended by GDB staff, not traffic.

They whole thing sucks. People that beat up kids will continue to do so anyway. It is merely social engineering by a very interfering government.

[Toaster]

add'l.....

poor case law before us has not helped. Smart-ass defence lawyers get people off all sorts of charges on bollocks issues regardless of the fact they were overwhelmingly guilty. I am just an angry man and need to vent my anger.... who wants a spanking!!!!!!!!!

[Grahameeboy]

Well..... (sigh).... the amendment is bollocks.... the act of smacking is criminalised under the new law regardless, so you are committing a crime if you smack a child unless it falls into some of the weird instances exempted under the law. What good parent wants that around their neck?

All we can do is have faith in the Police to interpret the Law as it was intended.

It is merely giving the authorities discretion on whether or not to prosecute. SO the cops now have to attend untold thousands of calls from little shits dobbing in their folks for getting a smack after failing to eat their asparagus.

So if you are in your home eating dinner how will anyone see what happens?

How would you feel with the cops turning up at your home because ya neighbour saw you smack ya kid after they were naughty? They will ask you dozens of questions and pass on your details to CYFS who will then consider the welfare of ya kids too.... more probing.

I agree it would not be nice, however, I agree with random breath road side tests even though I do not drink because I know that it will catch someone who is breaking the Law..............and I doubt the Police will pass this matter to the CYFS...that is taking things to extreme.

One of the problems this will cause is massive amounts of paperwork for the police/CYFS tying up their time on more domestic violence files. And don't think that means less time doing road policing. Domestics are only attended by GDB staff, not traffic.

I guess the massive amounts of paperwork will be for just reason...they have been the power of descretion and I have enough faith in them to do this.
They whole thing sucks. People that beat up kids will continue to do so anyway. It is merely social engineering by a very interfering government.

Same as drink drivers, however, I just feel that we are missing the fact that the Govt is trying to address the problem and lets face it it is not going to be a quick fix is it as it will take years to see what the benefits are.....

..............................